cpt-emnn478-5551212

(click on photo to activate video clip)

Robert Klein, ICOC Chair, urges opposition to anti-human chimera legislation
San Francisco, October 2, 2005

the situation in South Korea

According to a top article in today's New York Times entitled "Korean Leaves Cloning Center in Ethics Furor":

"The South Korean researcher who won world acclaim as the first scientist to clone a human embryo and extract stem cells from it apologized Thursday for lying over the sources of some human eggs used in his work and stepped down as director of a new research center.

"After months of denying rumors that swirled around his Seoul laboratory, the researcher, Dr. Hwang Woo Suk, confirmed that in 2002 and 2003, when his work had little public support, two of his junior researchers donated eggs and a hospital director paid about 20 other women for their eggs.

"On several earlier occasions, he had said that he did not use eggs harvested from subordinates and that no one was paid for egg donations.

Issues involving the "human egg farming" required to obtain the oocytes necessary for somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), the basic process likely to be used to generate customized embryonic stem cells to replace dead or damaged nerve, heart, pancreatic, and other cells in the patients to be treated or cured as a result of California's Proposition 71, are covered in depth in Etopia Media's Stem Cell Wars, Volume 2, Chapter 2: Human Egg Farming," subtitled: "Can either the free market or altruistic volunteers provide the human eggs needed for hESC research under Proposition 71, or will some form of coercion be necessary?"

Meanwhile, the head of California's Independent Citizens' Oversight Committee (ICOC), Robert Klein, who was also the principal author of the 2004 ballot initiative, Proposition 71, that created the ICOC, and was the head of the campaign that spent $34.7 million dollars during 2004 (much it from bio-tech-invested venture capitalists) to pass this legislation by telling every California voter who read the state's Official Voter Information Guide, among other things, that "Studies led by a Stanford University economist project that 71 will generate millions in new state revenues from royalties…" was asked, during the Tuesday, November 22, 2005, ICOC IP Task Force Subcommittee meeting at Stanford, in light of current developments regarding the impossibility of using tax-exempt state bonds to pay for embryonic stem cell research capable of generating any, let alone "millions in new state revenues from royalties," and an August 23, 2005, statement from the California Council on Science and Technology about its report saying that "It is unlikely that the program will quickly provide a new direct stream of revenue for the state," about whether the benefits from Proposition 71 might have been "oversold" during the campaign to pass it.

The question posed to Mr. Klein was:

"I'd like to ask Mr. Klein or any other members of the ICOC who'd like to respond, at this point in time considering everything that's just been discussed here, do you think that the picture of return on investment painted for voters in California prior to the passage of Prop. 71 Including specifically the possibility of up to $1.1 billion in direct payments to the State of California, was reasonable, the presentation, or do you think it was oversold?"

Chairing the meeting was Dr. Ed Penhoet, Vice-Chair of the ICOC, who said that "I don't think that's an appropriate question for this discussion today. Perhaps after this meeting Mr. Klein will be happy to speak with you, but it's not a subject that we're addressing here in this IP policy discussion here today. You're welcome to call Bob Klein if you'd like after this meeting and he'll be happy to speak with you on this issue."

Without further prompting, Mr. Klein responded to this question the next day, in an e-mail sent to the California Politics Today reporter, in which he ("As Chairman of the Proposition 71 Campaign") said:

"The information supplied by the LAO [Legislative Analyst's Office] and presented in the voter pamphlet stated that the intellectual property (IP) royalty and licensing revenue is "unknown but could be significant." This is the only info that went to every voter in the state. No specific amount for these revenues was claimed."

(click on graphic to visit original document on the web site of the California Secretary of State)

claim that Proposition 71 "will generate millions in new state revenues from royalties" in official ballot information pamphlet "that went to every voter in the state," even though Robert Klein said in his e-mail that "No specific amount for these revenues was claimed."

Mr. Rockwood's comments echo those of Paul Berg, PhD, the Robert W. and Vivian K. Cahill Professor of Cancer Research, Emeritus, at Stanford University, also a pioneer in the 1970s in what was then called "recombinant DNA"/ "genetic engineering" research, and winner of the 1980 Nobel Prize in chemistry, who, during a guest appearance at the May 23, 2005, meeting (on page 6 of the draft version of the July 12, 2005, "ICOC Meeting Agenda Item #5") of the Independent Citizens' Oversight Committee (ICOC) (the board of directors of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine [CIRM]) told that panel:

"The presupposition that there will be substantial royalty streams from the CIRM's patented research discoveries is counting chickens long before they've even been conceived."

So, Stanford-trained lawyer Robert Klein creates Proposition 71; pays Stanford-based medical economist Laurence Baker to make up figures claiming up to over a billion dollars in revenue to California from the measure; a ballot statement citing that bought-and-paid-for claim is signed by Stanford-based Nobel Laureate Paul Berg; the measure, backed with tens of millions of dollars in political contributions from Stanford-connected bio-tech venture capitalists, is passed by the voters, authorizing $3 billion in payments to companies controlled by the proposition's backers, with, as now emerges, no need for them to turn over any possible profits to the original investors (the voter/taxpayers of California); Dr. Berg then tells an under-publicized meeting of the ICOC that "the presupposition that there will be substantial royalty streams from the CIRM's patented research discoveries is counting chickens long before they've even been conceived;" Mr. Klein alleges that no such bought-and-paid-for, Nobel Laureate-endorsed, universally-published claim was ever made; absolute and incontrovertible documentary proof demonstrating the utter falsity of his statement is published on this page; and…not much happens.

The serious repercussions for the South Korean stem cell project from the exposure of Dr. Hwang's lies regarding this crucial element in the embryonic stem cell research process, the extraction of viable human eggs from women, highlight the dilemma involved in needing to extract human eggs in "an unpleasant procedure" while simultaneously refusing to pay women for undergoing that procedure because to do so would be "unethical," even though, as reported in a 1999 New Yorker article entitled "Annals of Reproduction—Eggs for Sale", women in the U.S., especially those considered to possess superior genes, are routinely paid large sums to sell their eggs to infertile couples who need them in order to make their own babies through the process of in vitro fertilization (IVF) using the services of largely-unregulated (and highly-profitable) fertility clinics.

According to the article in the New York Times:

"This prompted Roh Sung Il, the administrator of MizMedi Hospital in Seoul, to disclose at a news conference on Monday that during 2002 and 2003, he made payments of $1,400 to each woman who donated eggs. Egg donation is an unpleasant procedure that involves a week of daily hormone shots, culminating with the extraction of eggs through a hollow needle. 'For those who go through discomfort and sacrifice, it seemed natural to give some money as compensation,' Dr. Roh told reporters."

While Dr. Hwang's effort to cover-up the ethical malfeasance at the heart of his research operations has led to his semi-downfall (the Times reports, in this same article, that "The Health Ministry also indicated that it planned to continue to support his work, which receives $26.5 million in annual government funds."), Mr. Klein's position as Chair of the ICOC does not seem to be at increased risk due to his own effort to cover up the truth about what was said during the campaign to pass the initiative that created that position.

However, while South Korean efforts to discover ways to use embryonic stem cells to treat or cure degenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and diabetes, and debilitating injuries such as those involving the spinal cord, will continue, using the aforementioned "$26.5 million in annual government funds," and, most likely, the undiminished creativity and energy of the disgraced-but-still-determined-and-still-working Dr. Hwang, embryonic stem cell research in California as envisioned under the provisions of Proposition 71 is absolutely becalmed, due to on-going litigation brought by taxpayer groups challenging the constitutionality of that ballot measure and the subsequent inability of bond lawyer Klein and the ICOC he heads to float any part of the $3 billion dollars in California state general revenue stem cell bonds (to be repaid with around at least $6 billion in taxes from Californians) while their status is in legal limbo on account of the still-pending "reverse bond validation action" and the appeal likely to be filed should the litigating tax-payers lose the case recently argued in Alameda County Superior Court.